Climate Change – Focus on Regulationhttps://www.hlregulation.com
Thu, 23 May 2019 23:42:36 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.10EPA to Reconsider Final Determination on Mid-term Evaluation of GHG Emission Standards for Light-Duty Vehicleshttps://www.hlregulation.com/2017/08/23/epa-to-reconsider-final-determination-on-mid-term-evaluation-of-ghg-emission-standards-for-light-duty-vehicles/
Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:53:39 +0000http://www.hlregulation.com/?p=9936EPA and NHTSA are currently conducting a Mid-term Evaluation as part of the 2012 GHG emission standards established for MY 2017-2025 passenger cars and trucks. Pursuant to the 2012 rulemaking, EPA committed to conduct a Mid-term Evaluation of the GHG standards for MY 2022-2025 light-duty vehicles. As part of the Mid-term Evaluation, EPA issued for

]]>EPA and NHTSA are currently conducting a Mid-term Evaluation as part of the 2012 GHG emission standards established for MY 2017-2025 passenger cars and trucks. Pursuant to the 2012 rulemaking, EPA committed to conduct a Mid-term Evaluation of the GHG standards for MY 2022-2025 light-duty vehicles. As part of the Mid-term Evaluation, EPA issued for public comment a joint Draft Technical Assessment Report in July 2016 and a Proposed Determination in November 2016. EPA’s subsequent January 2017 Mid-term Evaluation Final Determination (“Final Determination”) recommended no change to the GHG standards for light duty vehicles for MY2022-2025. In March 2017, EPA announced its intention to reconsider this Final Determination and to coordinate its reconsideration with NHTSA’s review. EPA’s Mid-term Evaluation and new Final Determination must be completed by April 1, 2018.

At the same time, NHTSA also has issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for MY 2022–2025 Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards and Request for Scoping Comments on its Mid-term Evaluation, 82 Fed. Reg. 34,740 (July 26, 2017). In an upcoming proposed rulemaking, NHTSA intends to propose separate attribute based standards for passenger cars and light trucks for MYs 2022–2025, and also may evaluate the MY 2021 standards it finalized in 2012 to ensure they remain ‘‘maximum feasible.’’ As with any CAFE rulemaking, NHTSA will also consider other programmatic aspects in addition to stringency (such as flexibilities and vehicle classification) that may affect model years prior to MY 2022-2025. As part of its scoping process NHTSA seeks public comment on the range of alternatives under consideration, on the impacts to be considered, and on the most important matters for in-depth analysis in the EIS. Scoping comments are due to NHTSA by August 25, 2017.

These recent notices indicate EPA and NHTSA’s intent to issue a new Final Determination regarding the appropriateness of the MY 2022–2025 GHG standards no later than April 1, 2018, in consultation and coordination as part of a national harmonized program, and well before April 1, 2020, when NHTSA is statutorily required to issue a final rule for MY 2022 CAFE standards.

]]>European Commission publishes minimum principles for shale gas explorationhttps://www.hlregulation.com/2014/02/03/european-commission-publishes-minimum-principles-for-shale-gas-exploration/
Mon, 03 Feb 2014 15:10:05 +0000http://www.hlregulation.com/?p=5864On 22 January 2014, the European Commission (Commission) published a “Recommendation on minimum principles for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons (such as shale gas) using high volume hydraulic fracturing” (Recommendation). The Recommendation sets out minimum core principles for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons (e.g., shale gas) using high-volume hydraulic fracturing. The Recommendation is

]]>On 22 January 2014, the European Commission (Commission) published a “Recommendation on minimum principles for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons (such as shale gas) using high volume hydraulic fracturing” (Recommendation). The Recommendation sets out minimum core principles for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons (e.g., shale gas) using high-volume hydraulic fracturing. The Recommendation is intended to complement existing EU legislation.

It is accompanied by a “Communication on the exploration and production of hydrocarbons (such as shale gas) using high volume hydraulic fracturing in the EU” (Communication) outlining the potential new opportunities and challenges stemming from shale gas extraction in Europe, as well as an Impact Assessment that examined the socio-economic and environmental impacts of various policy options.

The Recommendation and the Communication are the culmination of the online stakeholder consultation and stakeholder meeting held by the Commission last year concerning shale gas developments in the EU (please see our earlier Environment and Energy Alert for more information on the consultation).

The Recommendation

The Recommendation aims to ensure that proper environmental and climate safeguards are in place for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons, including shale gas. In the preamble to the Recommendation, the Commission suggests that EU environmental legislation is outdated with regards to new exploration methods such as hydraulic fracturing. The Recommendation is intended to assist EU member states that allow hydraulic fracturing in their jurisdictions in addressing the health and environmental risks in regards to this method of shale gas exploration and improve transparency for citizens.

ensure that the integrity of the well is up to best practice standards;

capture methane emissions;

check the quality of the local water, air, and soil before operations start in order to monitor any changes and deal with emerging risks;

control air emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions, by capturing the gases;

inform the public about chemicals used in individual wells; and

ensure that operators apply best practices throughout the project.

The Recommendation is not legally binding. EU member states are still free to, for example, introduce or maintain a ban on shale gas exploration, or introduce or maintain detailed national measures on shale gas exploration. As a result, the area of unconventional hydrocarbons exploration and development remains, to a large extent, un-harmonized at the EU level.

In the accompanying Q&As, the Commission explained that the choice of a non-binding recommendation, as opposed to a binding measure such as a directive or regulation, was dictated by the urgency of the situation. A recommendation to EU member states has the advantage of being applied faster, while at the same time providing a common reference for action at the national level.

Next Steps

The Recommendation will soon officially be published in all official languages of the EU. EU member states are invited to make the principles of the Recommendation effective within six months from the date of its publication. From December 2014 onwards, EU member states shall inform the Commission annually about the effectiveness of the Recommendation.

The Commission will closely monitor the implementation of the principles set out in the Recommendation. Furthermore, the Commission will review the effectiveness of this approach in 18 months. Based on this review, the Commission will decide whether or not it is necessary to put forward legislative proposals with legally binding provisions on the exploration and production of hydrocarbons using high-volume hydraulic fracturing.

Impact

The Recommendation from the Commission on hydraulic fracturing shall be of great interest to all entities already active or planning to get involved in this sector in the EU. Successful application of the Recommendation may avoid or postpone the adoption of binding EU rules, and, therefore, allow EU member states with shale gas potential, like the UK, Poland, or Romania, to preserve greater influence on their domestic energy policies. Despite the non-binding character of the Recommendation, EU member states are very likely to follow the rules set out therein. As a result, companies active in the shale gas sector should be prepared to integrate the principles of the Recommendation into their environmental regulatory compliance policy and strategic business planning.

]]>DOI Energy and Climate Task Force to Develop Mitigation Strategies for Projects on Federal Landshttps://www.hlregulation.com/2013/11/13/doi-energy-and-climate-task-force-to-develop-mitigation-strategies-for-projects-on-federal-lands/
Wed, 13 Nov 2013 22:18:17 +0000http://www.hlregulation.com/?p=5464Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell’s first Secretarial Order, S. 3330, directs DOI’s Energy and Climate Task Force to prepare a comprehensive mitigation strategy for development projects on federal lands. In a speech on October 31, Secretary Jewell first announced the new mitigation directive when she shared her vision of the Administration’s conservation agenda with

]]>Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell’s first Secretarial Order, S. 3330, directs DOI’s Energy and Climate Task Force to prepare a comprehensive mitigation strategy for development projects on federal lands. In a speech on October 31, Secretary Jewell first announced the new mitigation directive when she shared her vision of the Administration’s conservation agenda with an audience at the National Press Club. Many of her themes had a familiar ring, including outreach to young people and volunteers; and resolution of “the inherent tensions that can exist with development and conservation.”

Secretary Jewell announced the issuance of her first Secretarial Order, to foster mitigation of development impacts on public lands “at a landscape level through strategic conservation and restoration”. So-called “compensatory mitigation” has its origins in a George H.W. Bush commitment to “no net loss of wetlands.” To implement “no net loss”, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers agreed in 1990 that unavoidable harmful discharges into the waters of the United States, when permitted under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, would be conditioned upon replacement of lost wetlands and aquatic resource functions.

Since then, the requirement of compensatory mitigation has grown to include upland habitat conservation, mitigation and conservation “banking”, advance (in lieu of project-specific) mitigation, and payments in lieu of mitigation. In each instance, the mitigation requirement is imposed through the exercise of state or federal regulatory authority, such as the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act or California’s Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Perhaps the most demanding statement of federal mitigation policy is found in the Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources Final Rule, adopted by EPA and the Corps in 2008 to further implement section 404.

In her speech, Secretary Jewell took note of California’s expansive Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, which is intended to facilitate energy development on public land in the Mojave Desert. In Secretarial Order No. 3330, the Secretary has asked the Department’s Energy and Climate Change Task Force, which is to be chaired by Deputy Secretary-designate Michael Connor to (1) evaluate existing mitigation practices and policies and (2) draft a strategy for additional policies and practices, emphasizing landscape-level planning. The Task Force is required to submit its report within 90 days, following consultation with agencies within and outside of the Department. The Task Force also is asked to assess the role of partnerships such as Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, which work with the Fish and Wildlife Service at the state level to promote landscape-scale conservation planning.

The Secretary is not alone in her belief that large-scale mitigation programs can facilitate infrastructure development while protecting significant natural areas and cultural sites. In S. 601, the Senate’s Water Resources Development Act of 2013, there is provision for a new Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation program (WIFIA), including federal loans for habitat acquisition as an component of project development. And institutional investors have been attracted to privately-funded mitigation banks, from which “credits” can be drawn to meet developers’ mitigation obligations.

]]>Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) requested comments on its draft solicitation for advanced fossil energy loan guarantee projects that significantly reduce greenhouse gas and other pollution emissions. This Advanced Fossil Energy Projects loan guarantee solicitation was authorized in Section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and DOE is moving forward with this solicitation as part of the Obama Administration’s Climate Action Plan.

As part of this solicitation, DOE may make available more than $8 billion in loan guarantee authority for eligible projects. As envisioned, eligible projects would be advanced fossil energy projects and facilities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the areas of advanced resource development, carbon capture, low-carbon power systems, and efficiency improvements. The program was included in EPAct 2005 because advanced fossil energy projects are typically unable to obtain conventional commercial financing due to the high level of risk involved in the technologies.

Advanced Resource Development – Projects in this category will “employ new or significantly improved technologies that avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or greenhouse gas emissions from development, recovery, and production of traditional and non-traditional fossil energy resources.”

Carbon Capture – Projects in this category will “integrate fossil fuel usage with new or improved technology that captures and removes CO2 for permanent storage in underground formations or through beneficial reuse.”

Low-Carbon Power Systems – Projects in this category will “utilize fossil fuels for electricity generation using novel processes or improved technologies that can seamlessly integrate with CO2 storage or beneficial reuse.”

Efficiency Improvements – Projects in this category will “incorporate new or improved technologies to increase efficiencies and substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with fossil fuel supply and use.”

Specifically, the Department is seeking “comments regarding the weighting percentage allocated to each category for evaluations (Programmatic, Technical, Policy, and Financial) and the categories themselves.” Companies and entities with advanced fossil energy technologies that would like to see the solicitation tailored to specifically include their type of technology or that have technologies that are not contemplated in the DOE draft solicitation should submit comments on the solicitation.

]]>Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing Upheld by D.C. Circuit While New Challenge May Loomhttps://www.hlregulation.com/2013/05/24/polar-bear-endangered-species-act-listing-upheld-by-d-c-circuit-while-new-challenge-may-loom/
Fri, 24 May 2013 19:15:15 +0000http://www.hlregulation.com/?p=4472A recent denial of rehearing by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals brought closure to a lawsuit challenging a five-year old decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). One environmental group, however, has now indicated its intent to sue FWS with a

]]>A recent denial of rehearing by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals brought closure to a lawsuit challenging a five-year old decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). One environmental group, however, has now indicated its intent to sue FWS with a new challenge concerning the polar bear’s listing.

On May 15, 2008, FWS finalized its rule listing the polar bear (ursus martimus) as a threatened species under the ESA (the Listing Rule). FWS reasoned that, due to the impacts of climate change and the loss of summer sea ice habitat, polar bears faced extinction within the forseeable future. Several lawsuits challenging the Listing Rule were filed by states, industry and environmental groups and consolidated before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which upheld the FWS’ listing of the polar bear as threatened. In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and § 4(d) Rule Litigation, 794 F. Supp.2d 65 (D.D.C. 2011). In a March 1, 2013 opinion the D.C. Circuit agreed with the district court’s decision and also upheld FWS’ Listing Rule.

The D.C. Circuit explained:

The Listing Rule rests on a three-part thesis: the polar bear is dependent upon sea ice for its survival; sea ice is declining; and climate changes have and will continue to dramatically reduce the extent and quality of Arctic sea ice to a degree sufficiently grave to jeopardize polar bear populations. . . . No part of this thesis is disputed and we find that FWS’s conclusion—that the polar bear is threatened within the meaning of the ESA—is reasonable and adequately supported by the record.

On April 29, 2013, the D.C. Circuit rejected without comment requests for a panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, bringing closure to that challenge of FWS’ Listing Rule.

Following the D.C. Circuit’s rejection of rehearing, on the five-year anniversary of the Listing Rule, May 15, 2013, the Center for Biological Diversity issued a notice of intent to sue to FWS for allegedly “failing to timely conduct a [five-year] status review and complete a recovery plan” under the ESA since listing the polar bear in 2008. A 60-day notice of intent is required before a lawsuit can be filed under the ESA.

In related ursus martimus news, on February 20, 2013, the FWS issued a new Final Special Rule under section 4(d) of the ESA. The ESA’s § 4(d) is significant because it allows the Service to use the Marine Mammal Protection Act to develop practices for on-site management of the polar bear in the bear’s range—such as bear patrols or site-specific plans for oil and gas exploration and development projects—not allowed under the ESA. It also provides that incidental take of polar bears resulting from activities outside the bear’s range—such as from increased greenhouse gas emissions—is not prohibited under the ESA. The Final Special Rule is unchanged from the April 19, 2012 proposed rule (described in a previous blog) and became effective as of March 22, 2013.

]]>EPA Comments on the Keystone NEPA Review—Monetizing the Social Costs of CO2 Emissionshttps://www.hlregulation.com/2013/04/30/epa-comments-on-the-keystone-nepa-review-monetizing-the-social-costs-of-co2-emissions/
Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:45:27 +0000http://www.hlregulation.com/?p=4371On April 22, 2013, comments filed on the Keystone Pipeline draft supplemental environmental impact statement, EPA unveiled a new approach to evaluating climate change impacts under NEPA—monetizing social costs of CO2. In those comments, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance recommended that the State Department use “monetized estimates of the social cost of

]]>On April 22, 2013, comments filed on the Keystone Pipeline draft supplemental environmental impact statement, EPA unveiled a new approach to evaluating climate change impacts under NEPA—monetizing social costs of CO2. In those comments, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance recommended that the State Department use “monetized estimates of the social cost of the GHG emissions from a barrel of oil sands crude compared to average U.S. crude.” What EPA means is that the final EIS should calculate the cost to society of the difference in GHG emissions between using Keystone crude and an average U.S. crude. Over fifty years, the State Department suggests the difference could be as much as 935 million metric tons of CO2.

EPA has an economic tool standing by for this estimate. In 2010, an interagency working group published a report entitled “Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis.” The report concludes with a table that estimates the cost per metric ton of CO2 of changes in agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk, and the impact to ecosystem services due to climate change. The costs are high, ranging from $4.7 to $136.2 per metric ton ($2007), depending on discount rates, the year in which the CO2 is emitted, and assumptions about future climate change impacts. One environmental group says the true social cost of carbon is even higher—$55 to 266 per metric ton.

At this time, EPA only recommends comparing the social cost of carbon of Keystone crude versus an average crude slate. But this social cost of carbon estimation method—once used—could also be used in other NEPA analyses, even though the utility of these estimates may be questionable under NEPA. Nonetheless, project opponents could use the cost estimation to argue that the cost of climate impacts outweighs the utility of a particular challenged project.

This is an important new development that warrants close attention by anyone planning a project for which greenhouse gases will be analyzed under NEPA.

]]>Senate Energy Committee Schedules Forums on Natural Gashttps://www.hlregulation.com/2013/04/04/senate-energy-committee-schedules-forums-on-natural-gas/
Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:23:04 +0000http://www.hlregulation.com/?p=4285The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has announced it will hold a series of roundtable forums on natural gas issues in May. Each of the three forums, which follow a February Committee hearing on natural gas challenges and opportunities, will focus on specific policy issues facing the country’s growing natural gas resources. The May

The May 16 forum will focus on “Infrastructure, Transportation, Research and Innovation,” and will explore how producers will meet the growing demand for natural gas, the need to expand natural gas pipeline and vehicle refueling infrastructure, and the role of government in promoting the increased use of natural gas use in the transportation sector, both with respect to trucks and passenger vehicles. This will also be a good opportunity to discuss the opportunity to capture CO2 from natural gas midstream processing plants that could provide anthropogenic CO2 for use in enhanced oil recovery projects.

A forum on “Domestic Supply and Exports” will follow on May 21. It will focus on current estimates of natural gas reserves and the positive and negative impacts of natural gas exports. This forum will allow producers to explain the opportunity of the increase in the supply of LPG’s as feedstock for the growing US petrochemical industry and other industries that use natural gas as a fuel if gas production can be accelerated.

The final forum, “Shale Development: Best Practices and Environmental Concerns,” will be held May 23. Witnesses will discuss the impact of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas extraction and environmental impacts of fracking and shale gas development. The Committee will be gathering information about where to best establish procedures for regulating and understanding the environmental issues associated with shale gas development.

Rather than the typical committee hearing, the three forums are touted by Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) as roundtables, designed to allow more robust, in-depth discussion of particular issues with input from multiple witnesses and Committee Members. Witnesses have not been announced.

The forums will provide information to Chairman Wyden and Committee members that will likely lay the foundation for natural gas legislation that will likely be introduced for consideration in this Congress. If you would like more information on the forums or would like to participate in the forums, please contact a member of the Hogan Lovells Energy or Government Relations teams.

]]>Shale gas exploration: European Commission launches stakeholder Consultationhttps://www.hlregulation.com/2013/03/19/shale-gas-exploration-european-commission-launches-stakeholder-consultation/
Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:25:57 +0000http://www.hlregulation.com/?p=4235The European Commission is completing a Consultation on the need for additional regulation of unconventional fossil fuel (e.g., shale gas) exploration and development in Europe. The Consultation period ends on 23 March 2013 and results will be made available on the Commission’s website and at a stakeholders’ meeting to be held by the Commission in

]]>The European Commission is completing a Consultation on the need for additional regulation of unconventional fossil fuel (e.g., shale gas) exploration and development in Europe. The Consultation period ends on 23 March 2013 and results will be made available on the Commission’s website and at a stakeholders’ meeting to be held by the Commission in April 2013.

The Consultation is the first step in what will most likely be a lengthy regulatory exercise. Existing and proposed regulatory regimes in the United States could provide some useful lessons for Europe. Presently in the U.S., tension exists between the exercise of regulatory authority by the states and local governments specifically impacted by oil and gas development and the emergence of federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing, including regulation of such activities on public lands. Following close of the Consultation period, Hogan Lovells will convene an international webinar, both to discuss the issues raised during the Consultation and to compare the U.S. regulatory environment with trends in Europe.

The Commission’s initiative arises amidst a rapidly evolving situation in Europe, with potentially, significant implications for the continued development of unconventional hydrocarbons. Facing increasing reliance on imported gas supplies, several EU Member States are interested in exploring and developing shale gas resources, which preliminary studies suggest may be extensive throughout Europe, including in Poland, UK, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Romania, Lithuania, Denmark, Sweden, Hungary, Bulgaria, and France. However, given public concerns around unknown environmental impacts some Member States (including France, Bulgaria, and the Netherlands) have imposed temporary or indefinite moratoria on the use of hydraulic fracturing practices necessary to extract unconventional hydrocarbons, while others such as Denmark have initiated, or are poised to initiate, reviews of the adequacy of their domestic legislation and the need for additional regulation or guidance. Consequently, high volume hydraulic fracturing has not yet been used to any great extent in Europe, and the practice has been limited primarily to lower volume fracturing of tight gas and conventional reservoirs offshore and onshore in Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the UK.

The Commission believes that these developments support the need for a clear, predictable, and coherent approach to the development of unconventional hydrocarbons across the EU.

Experience gained in the United States

In many ways, the European situation parallels the development of unconventional hydrocarbon resources in the U.S. In less than a decade, technological advancements and the integration of horizontal wells with hydraulic fracturing practices have enabled the rapid development of domestic shale gas resources, to the extent that the U.S. has evolved from an overall importer of natural gas to an exporter of this now-abundant commodity. As of 2012, current or prospective shale gas development projects were extant in at least 31 states.

Although regulation of oil and gas production has traditionally been the province of the states and local government, the proliferation of new projects and use of advanced technology have given rise to a clamor for uniform federal regulation of shale gas production. This is especially true of development on public lands, which are managed by the federal government. The regulation of unconventional hydrocarbon development (of both private and public mineral interests) covers dozens of elements, including those relating to air and water quality, disposal of flowback/process water, identification and disclosure of process chemicals, surface access, location, site development and preparation, ecological and socio-economic considerations, well plugging and abandonment, and well inspection and enforcement, among many others. The U.S. experience with these complexities will undoubtedly prove relevant to the evolving situation in Europe.

Following publication of the Commission’s Consultation findings Hogan Lovells will host a stakeholder webinar on unconventional hydrocarbon development in the U.S. and EU.

]]>The National Environmental Development Association’s Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP) recently filed a petition for review for review in the D.C. Circuit challenging a December 21, 2012 EPA Memorandum, which provides policy guidance on the applicability of the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Summit Petroleum Corp. v. EPA (No. 09-4348/10-4572) to Clean Air Act (CAA) Title V and NSR source determinations. EPA issued the Memorandum following the Sixth Circuit’s denial of EPA’s petition for a rehearing in Summit Petroleum Corp. v. EPA.

In the Sixth Circuit case, Summit had contested EPA’s long-standing interpretation of the term “adjacent” in its air permitting regulations, under which EPA concluded that Summit’s natural gas processing plant and one hundred related gas wells situated over forty-three square miles constituted a single, major source requiring a Title V operating permit. EPA concluded that though the facilities were physically independent, they were “truly interrelated,” and thus “adjacent” under the CAA. As described in a previous post, the Sixth Circuit disagreed with EPA and held:

“that the physical requirement of adjacency can be established through mere functional relatedness is unreasonable and contrary to the plain meaning of the term ‘adjacent’.”

The Sixth Circuit vacated EPA’s permitting determination and remanded the case for reassessment by EPA.

EPA’s Memorandum specifies that in areas within the Sixth Circuit’s jurisdiction (Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky), the Agency may no longer consider interrelatedness in determining adjacency when making Title V or NSR permitting decisions, in accordance with the Summit decision. According to the Memorandum, however, outside of the Sixth Circuit jurisdiction, “EPA does not intend to change its longstanding practice of considering interrelatedness” to determine adjacency in Title V or NSR permitting decisions. At this early stage in the lawsuit, the bases on which NEDA/CAP will challenge the Memorandum are unclear. The implications for EPA are particularly significant because the aggregation of emissions from multiple related sources triggers rigorous air permitting requirements for major sources under the CAA.

]]>DOE, EPA, OMB Nominees Announcedhttps://www.hlregulation.com/2013/03/04/doe-epa-omb-nominees-announced/
Mon, 04 Mar 2013 20:03:48 +0000http://www.hlregulation.com/?p=4073Earlier today, President Obama announced the nomination of three cabinet-level appointments to his Administration: Ernest Moniz as Secretary of Energy; Gina McCarthy as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and Sylvia Matthews Burwell as Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Dr. Moniz, a professor of nuclear physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Dr. Moniz, a professor of nuclear physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, currently leads the MIT Energy Initiative. He previously served as Undersecretary of Energy and is advisor to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Dr. Moniz is viewed as a pragmatic policymaker who balances hard science with real-world realities. Many view his political instincts as keener than his predecessor’s.

McCarthy currently serves as Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation at the EPA. Prior to her work at the EPA, she was appointed to senior environmental positions in Massachusetts and Connecticut. McCarthy served as commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, and served in various regulatory roles under Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Though she has worked under Republican leadership in those states, she is viewed skeptically by many business interests in Washington – in particular the coal industry – and is expected to face a tough nomination battle in the Senate.

In choosing Burwell to head the OMB, the President has selected a nominee with previous White House experience and who has worked closely with the newly-confirmed Secretary of the Treasury, Jack Lew. Burwell currently serves as President of the Walmart Foundation, and previously worked with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Both Republicans and Democrats have announced support for her nomination.

All three nominees will need to be vetted and confirmed by the Senate over the coming weeks and months.